[Pants-of-dog]

Like I said, they can call themselves what they want.
Hobgoblins, satanists, ..............

So they can call themselves atheists.

Now, since these people are atheists and have more than just an absemce of belief, your definition is incorrect for these people.

[Besoeker]

So they can call themselves atheists.

Now, since these people are atheists and have more than just an absemce of belief, your definition is incorrect for these people.

Atheism is the absence of a belief in any deity. How people want to label themselves doesn't change that.

[Pants-of-dog]

And yet we have examples of atheism that are more than a simple absence of belief.

And that is why your generalisation is wrong.

[Besoeker]

And yet we have examples of atheism that are more than a simple absence of belief.

And that is why your generalisation is wrong.

It isn't a generalisation. It's a definition.

[Pants-of-dog]

It is both, and it is wrong.

[Besoeker]

It is both, and it is wrong.

Your opinion is noted. But eclipsed by my facts.

[Pants-of-dog]

Which facts are those?

You have not presented any facts. You just misunderstand me, or repeat your incorrect generalisation.

[Besoeker]

Which facts are those?

You have not presented any facts. You just misunderstand me, or repeat your incorrect generalisation.

It isn't an incorrect generalisation.
It's neither.

[Pants-of-dog]

I have already shown that it is wrong.

Now, where are those facts that you supposedly presented?

[Besoeker]

I have already shown that it is wrong.

So you dispute the definition?

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, i do. I have been disputing it for quite some time now.

Thank you for catching up.

[jakell]

Almost circled back around to the beginning now. Next he'll ask you what is wrong with the 'definition'.

Of course, as we've established it's not innacurate, it's just that it is only a partial description (ie not a definition), and therefore not very good. It's a 'word equation that points at nothing, it's a trick performed by a slippery character who has no intent on having a discussion. If he did he would have answered your question "What would you call someone who doesn't believe in God?"

[Pants-of-dog]

I am uncertain as to which is more hilarious: if Besoeker is just trolling, or if he actually believes it.

[jakell]

It's incredible how many times I've seen him do this basic routine in different venues. On here though people seem a bit more wise to it, which is heartwarming.

Yes, he actually believes it. It works because he always chooses metaphysical discussions where there are naturally lots of loose ends, therefore to apply simple reductive logic remorselessly nearly always 'wins' (it's a Pyhrric victory though).
It's not much removed from the child's "why?" game, which can be played forever until the 'victim' wises up.

[jakell]

As there's been a hiatus, I'll expand on what may be (to me) the only point of interest here... conversational snares abound in internet discussion, probably because the medium is potentially so efficient that we quickly get through the 'positive' stuff, until we reach those familiar sticking points (again)

The most basic version of these is the child's "why?" game ie to simply stick "but why?" on the end of every contribution, until exhaustion sets in. What lies at the bottom of this bad faith, the pretence of curiosity when all that is wanted is the perpetual "gotcha!".
Once the child starts to grow up a bit, the way out is to try to kickstart genuine curiosity, which shouldn't be too difficult in a child, and this can be done by following "but why?" with "why what?", thus altering the focus on the need to ask proper questions and not repetetive fake ones. Of course this only works if the child wants to stop the pretence, if they don't they can play dumb and the game continues.

What we've seen here is a slightly more complex version of the "why?" game, but at the root is the same principle.. bad faith.

[Besoeker]

Yes, i do. I have been disputing it for quite some time now.

Thank you for catching up.

Please try to understand what the word means.
Atheism.
A-theism. Without theism.
That's it.

[Besoeker]

It's incredible how many times I've seen him do this basic routine in different venues.

So you ARE trolling me.........

[Pants-of-dog]

Please try to understand what the word means.
Atheism.
A-theism. Without theism.
That's it.

How do you reconcile that definition with those atheists who believe god does not exist?

[Drlee]

Well. Besoaker is simply wrong. His so called definition is incorrect. He may not be capable of a more complete understanding. His problem is that he does not understand the term "theism". That is why he does not understand the word "atheism".

So you tell us Besucker, what does the word "theism" mean?

We can't worry too much what someone who is unable to understand thinks. They are not relevant to the discussion.

[Besoeker]

Well. Besoaker is simply wrong. His so called definition is incorrect. He may not be capable of a more complete understanding. His problem is that he does not understand the term "theism". That is why he does not understand the word "atheism".

So you tell us Besucker, what does the word "theism" mean?

Since you claim that I don't know what it means why ask?
That really is stupid.